BSD User's Review Of OS X 406
Lally Singh writes: "Getting bored with the latest distribution? Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Then listen to one BSD user's opinion of Mac OS X. And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it."
This guy is a FreeBSD user?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, he did mention the most of the right files and all. Still, he managed to install FreeBSD without ever looking at "sysinstall"? Okay, maybe sysinstall doesn't have all the transparent glossiness there, but by gosh, all the basic network settings can be done right there. A user need not ever know that rc.conf exists!
With this router I can also run DHCP to auto-configure network systems on my private network. Within moments I had connectivity to the internet.
Again, DHCP is an option right in sysinstall. You do not have to go hunting through a 3 foot high stack of how-to's and man pages. This is right within the installer, which you can call back at any time.
With BSD systems you may not even have driver support and therefore have no sound at all.
I've successfuly got going 4 different sound cards with FreeBSD. One of which was built on to the motherboard, two were PCI, and the last was ISA. Each one needed the very same tweak to the kernel. Okay, kernel tweaking may not be for the newbie, but it did work each time.
I won't even get into the troubles this guy had with getting the compiler to work. Again, the real FreeBSD would have been WAY easier.
Re:iBook is LAME (Score:3, Insightful)
As a rabid Mac evangelist, I am saddened to agree with this statement. Not only is the iBook's ATI 128 card capable of higher resolutions, it is also capable of dual screen support (have the LCD and the video out showing separate windows).
Apple intentionally left those features out of their iBook drivers to push sales to the TiBook, which is a freaking awesome beast that does not need stupid protectionism. Just give it a 100M speed bump, an optional Radeon or Geforce, and a mild price cut. Hamstringing the iBook is not the right answer.
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:1, Insightful)
That notwithstanding, I think you may have missed an important point in the latest product announcement.
The price drop you mentioned on the 733 system (from a $3500 top-of-the-line box to $1700 entry-level system) is certainly significant, but the configurations are not comparable. The most important difference is the elimination the DVD-R SuperDrive from the new model (which alone probably accounts for over half the discount).
In the broader sense, though, I think it is worth noting that for better or worse Apple's development is a notch more episodic than the more gradual, incremental improvements of the Wintel manufacturers. PCs tend to creep up in MHz and down in price fairly steadily, with small bumps at minor inflection points (e.g., adding 1394), but the products themselves exist on a continuum of price, performance, and capability.
Apple, on the other hand, seeks to redefine entire product categories on a regular basis. One can question its success at that, but the process is inarguably different. In addition to doing the traditional megahertz boosting and other linear product improvements required of any computer manufacturer, Apple invests tremendous effort in the development of new technology and product paradigms. Again, Apple's success at that may be mixed, but the process is inherently discontinuous -- revolution is never milestoned. Unlike Wintel clone companies, Apple is in the business of innovation. You can debate the wisdom of the business model or the appeal of the products, but the development model is fundamentally different.
What secrets can Dell have from Gateway? The similarity of the products is half their appeal, and modest price differentials are the primary point of competition. Apple, on the other hand, strives to offer significant amounts of unique (or uniquely appealing) capability to its users. As a niche player, Apple must make its products distinctive. Even if Apple could release its product schedule a year in advance, it would not be in the best interests of the company or its long-term users to do so. Why make it any easier for Michael Dell or Bill Gates to knockoff its innovations and steal the market, if only with preemptive FUD?
a bit of humor (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What thinking "different" will get you (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you realize exactly how many of those who purchase G4s run Photoshop almost exclusively. What should they benchmark? Kernel compile times?
In the absence of actual innovation...
Interesting you say that. From my perspective, Apple and Sony seem to be the only personal computer makers on the planet left actually creating new products. iDVD? iMovie? Final Cut? Ti PowerBook? New iBook? Um... Mac OS X [apple.com]?
What type of innovation have other PC makers offered this year?
- Scott
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that anyone's saying they suck. It's just that a lot of people have been waiting for someone to put together the power of UNIX beneath an easy-to-use GUI, coupled with application support that still only seems to exist in the commercial OS arena. Apple appears to be the first company to pull it off. Linux and *BSD still have their places, but I - for one - want to "have it all". If I have to pay a slight cash premium to get it, so be it.
Also, consider this: I get paid $100/hour for consulting. What does it cost me to muck around with my X configuration for a few hours to get it to work with my video card? (Not to mention my sound card configuration and the extra screwing around that you always have to do when installing any peripheral under Linux) A few hours of not having to screw with that stuff, and the Apple hardware suddenly isn't a premium investment after all. In my business, I really have to consider the Total Cost of Ownership.
Sorry, but proprietary is going the way of the dinosaur.
Says you. Personally, I love open standards and open software - but they haven't been the answer to everything. Despite the fact that the GNU project has been around for every bit as long as the Mac (since 1984), they still don't have an OS that my mom could install and use. Why is that? Will they ever put together a total user experience like Microsoft, Apple, and to some exten Be have? I hope they will, but who knows? Maybe the whole Free/free software model will never provide a viable alternative to the commercial software world.
I have computer needs now, though, and I'm not going to let software religion get in the way of meeting those needs.
CC? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.
Actually, although the G4 is clearly a superior chip then a PIII, or even an Athlon Thunderbird, the price performance ratio is what is in question.
You're right - mhz rating has NOTHING to do with it. It's completely irrelevant if processor A at nmhz outperforms processor B at nmhz. What does matter, is if processor A at $n outperforms processor B at the same price. Anyone can go out and build a super optimized chip that runs at 500mhz and outperforms another chip at 2ghz, but what's the point if it costs 10times as much?
To quantify my point with a relevant example, here's a rough comparison:
If I spend $77 [newegg.com] for an Athlon 1.0Ghz, I don't care if a $349 [maczone.com] G4 500mhz get's similar scores on benchmarks.
Fundamental? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I've just started reading and already I've hit:
I guess the author & I have a different idea of "fundamental". My idea of a fundamental is being able to dd to a raw device. I'll grant that compilers and network utilities can be fundamental depending on the application, but web & db servers? Besides, it's not like you couldn't get all four of those under MacOS. I think OS X is much more impressive under the hood as opposed to just the benefits of adding a CLI.
There, I've said my peace - flame away.
-"Zow"
Kwitcherbitchen (Score:5, Insightful)
You're displaying a common misunderstanding about marketing -- things are generally priced based on what people will pay for them, not based on what they cost. Don't like it? Tough. That's capitalism.
Apple is charging you a premium for the convenience of buying it from them. They're not the only company that charges for the convenience: ever bought popcorn at the movies? Do you pay a 1000% markup on Coke at a fast food place? Did you know that most liquor companies bottle the exact same stuff in a generic bottle and sell it for half the price as a "house brand"? My company charges about $10k for a bottom of the line PC if you insist that we sell you one to go with our multi-million dollar telephone switch. And customers pay it, because it's simpler that way.
Same thing.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real.
What matters most is what YOU use the computer for. If its as a gaming machine, fine buy Intel. If you need to work with Photoshop all day buy a Mac, the price difference per MHz is irrelevant if you make your money doing this type of work. Need to compile stuff fast? How about a AMD or Alpha. Need to run Oracle with very high reliability, use SPARC/Solaris. Need to process as million records a second for a billing application, use an IBM Mainframe. Want to edit home movies, buy a Mac.
Get it right, its USEABILITY that matters not MHz.
Find the best machine for a task and then worry about MHz.
My personal opinion is that the best machine for a geek to play with linux, games, fool around with hardware etc has to be an x86 box because of the all round flexibility for a great price. In a business though? I don't care if costs $1K or $100K more if its more useable for the given task then the extra cost is almost irrelevant.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a hell of a lot more stable than WinNT 4 or Win2000 too. And it's only 100 bucks more than the 733MHz IBM A21s that we bought at the same time.
The price/performance ratio is in line with X86.
A few notes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the other fact that Apple has to deal with (which in turn jacks up price) is the ability to produce the processors to meet demand. When the G4 debuted, Apple and Motorolla could not meet the demand. My buddy waited a few months extra for his dual G4. The inability to mass produce, something that Intel and AMD have the luxury of, will certainly jack up costs due to the obvious extra work required to produce the same output. This is probably, IMHO, one of the biggest contributors to Apple's price difference. But, (even being an Intel employee), I am thouroghly impressed with the G4's performace. I can't wait to see how the Intel Itanium aligns itself with the G4.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
to clear up some confusion, the fact the the number before the "Mhz" on the chip description tends to be lower with Macs isn't relavant. once you move accross chip architectures, those numbers are next to meaningless. do you really think your 100Mhz 486 and my 100 Mhz MIPS chip perform comprably? sorry, not even close. the PowerPC chip design is much cleaner, faster, and more efficient than the x86 design, especially the P-III grade design. hz for hz, a PPC chip'll beat an x86 chip any time.
to be fair, even if you take a more "enlightened" view of the performance, apple's price/performance ratio isn't quite as good as many x86 desktop models (although it's close, and better than many of the big-name boxes). but there's much more to buying a computer than that. Apple hardware is actually engineered, in ways that most other PCs certainly don't seem to be. the hardware is well-designed and well-built. on desktop systems, i've not seen anything in the x86 market that comes close, and that's probably because of some fundamental facts of that market. the x86 world does a bit better with laptops, but Apple's still got them beat there, too. add to that the usability issues, battery life, screen size and clarity, and general slickness, and Apple comes out well worth the extra ~$100 (if that) they're behind in a strict price/performance comparison.
the current iBook line starts at $1300, list. nothing in the x86 laptop world comes close for under $1500. the iMac starts at $1000, roughly comparable to many of the $900-1100 low-end boxes being offered by the big x86 producers.
and, of cource, there's the OS to consider, which is kinda what this is about. in my book, a box shipping with OS X is a huge win over a box shipping with more M$ crap. and i'm talking for people like my mom, for whom linux (or any other non-OS X unix) isn't even a remote posability.
Whats wrong with a mac (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think mac's sucked until i worked on them and supported them - they dont - the G4 is a mind blowing machine for what its intended for - trust me it can and does piss on any wintel or IBM compatible equipment in the fields of Graphics manipulation, Desktop Publishing, video editing and related functions(and dont start talking to me about SGI or such like - i dont call a pro machine priced at $15k US a general use machine and this therefore wipes out AAVID etc - i mean for general business and home use). The mac is exstensively used for web design and graphic work, in advertising it remains king and dont look now but they are still making major sales in the home user market.
Why ?
Think about it - they are user friendly - very much so in fact - need to reinstall the os, then just copy the files onto the hard drive and reboot (this i believe does not hold for OSx - i have a 9600 power mac at home with my pc's but it wont run the latest release), installing most software is also that easy, and configuration of internet and ISDN is so simple it will make most windows people cry (and dont get me started on linux config)
The mac is becoming every day a more attractive platform - the only thing against it is price - in aussie the G3 starts at $3895including a CD-RW drive which does not include a monitor - sure you can bung a standard VGA on it but if you do then you are missing out - the newer LCd monitors apple have are mindblowing.
If the price for these machines comes down to around $2000 with a monitor (or a top end of $3000) then they would become a serious market player (remember this is the entry level - the top end starts at $7699 less monitor (but with the apple superdrive DVD burner) and a monitor starts at $1399
I would buy one at that price - the 9600 i have is going on 4 years old and still shits on my PII 866 with 512k of ram for photoshop work - the OS is not as bad as you may believe and is worth a look
The only issue is that there is limited free software (and warez for all the l33t haxors)on the mac, thats due to the higher cost of developing for what really has been seen as a pro platform, but this is changing all the time as more and more people move into macs in the home market, thus driving things forward. Come on GPL people - money where the mouth is an start developing for the MAC OS under this license. (i think it can be done)
So the next time you dismiss an apple as a toy or dying go out and play with one for a while - you might be surprised and be carefull you may fall in love ! After all this is a company that has been declared dead more times than i can count and they are getting stronger by the day again.
PC User - MAC Lover - Microsoft by neccesity - Open Source by choice - free speach for all - thats my story whats yours ?
PS for all the mac and tech lovers out there you can contact Steve Wozniak (inventor of the Apple i and one of the true hardware pioneers of the PC industry) at www.woz.org or email him on laura@woz.org - a chance to talk to a legend if thats your cup of tea
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Macs are clearly faster for Photoshop (tested by multiple parties, including such Mac-unfriendly sites as PC Magazine and TechTV), but what a lot of people don't realize is that the Photoshop and Media Cleaner Pro shootouts that Apple does are run by scripts that are really the condensed workday of a user. It's not just a few specific tests in Photoshop, it's hundreds of tasks. Every step the user took as they created the movie poster, or transferred the video from tape to the Web. Common graphics tasks like resizing an image are the same in Photoshop or Final Cut Pro or Internet Explorer or Word or wherever
The whole industry is using the same process for their CPU's. There's no magic happening with the P4 except for marketing magic. I know you think you know better, but you're just looking ignorant here. There's a reason why people aren't rushing out to buy P4-based systems
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The G4 PowerBook is one-inch thick and has a 15.1 inch wide-aspect display. It has 5-hour battery life and can take 1GB of RAM. You have to see one to appreciate that it is a brick of metal that you can then open up to see a huge, perfect LCD display. Running Mac OS X, it's the state-of-the-art in computing. You can get one for $2500 and they include a free FireWire CD-burner and printer for that price, too. It looks like a boutique computer, but it is not. Apple's price points are the same ones that everybody else uses, they just don't sell stuff with a bunch of things stripped out.
There are guys here on Slashdot that still drool over old Sun notebooks. Apple's stuff today is a thousand times more advanced than those old notebooks, and they are still Unix workstations if that's what you want.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dell's $999 offering is a Pentium IV 1.3 ghz, 256 MB RAM. Is that what you would call "low-end"? Sorry, but if you want to make Apple look competitive, the iMac is not the way.
Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Our Dell rep was more than happy to show me their product roadmaps for the next 12 months, so I could plan when I wanted to buy machines, and how long I could expect for each model to be around. It was even accurate, it predicted the mini-tower Optiplex GX150 would be released on March 23, and it was. I saw that on the roadmap back in January...
Try getting Apple to give you that kind of detail. I hate how Apple has to turn each minor revision of their product line into an "event". And, before you start calling me a PC bigot, know that I'm typing this from my shiny new iBook that I bought with my own money (running OS X) and reading slashdot over my AirPort base station connection while sitting in bed.
Apple needs to take a lesson from Dell, they're computers, not spy planes or nuclear missile codes, is that extreme level of secrecy really necessary? I feel really sorry for any chump who bought the $3500 G4 733mhz the day before the MacWorld NY keynote. 24 hours later, a machine witht he same CPU sold for $1699. That's just being cruel to your customers in my book...
Apple also needs to make 3 year warranties more affordable. It cost $237 to increase my warranty to three years on my iBook, but laptops take too much abuse to be without an extended warranty.
And, as long as I'm wishing, Apple needs some more enterprise-strength management features for their computers. Mac Manager and ASIP don't provide anywhere near the level of control that an ActiveDirectory domain does...